Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

The purpose of the study presented in this paper is to compare the current ACI 318-11 strut-and-tie modeling procedure to the previous ACI 318-99 sectional approach for the design of deep beams. To accomplish this goal, the author compiled a database of 905 deep beam tests from the literature. Of these tests, 438 specimens were isolated based on available specimen details, configuration of the test, or both. The shear capacity of these specimens was calculated according to the ACI 318-99 (Section 11.8) and ACI 318-11 (Appendix A) provisions, and compared with their experimentally measured capacity. Based on this analysis, it was observed that capacities calculated with both provisions are statistically similar for the experimental data available; however, the average of the capacities calculated per the ACI 318-99 procedure is increasingly unconservative as the specimen's cross-sectional area increases. The implication of this finding is that use of the ACI 318-99 provisions to design a conventionally sized transfer girder may potentially result in an unsafe situation. The strut and tie modeling procedure did not exhibit this downward trend because the method is founded in first principles. Thus, structural engineers can be assured that their transfer girders will be conservatively designed when using the strut and tie modeling procedure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationStructures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress
PublisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Pages824-834
Number of pages11
ISBN (Print)9780784413357
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014
EventStructures Congress 2014 - Boston, United States
Duration: Apr 3 2014Apr 5 2014

Other

OtherStructures Congress 2014
CountryUnited States
CityBoston
Period4/3/144/5/14

Fingerprint

Struts
Beams and girders
Engineers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Building and Construction
  • Civil and Structural Engineering

Cite this

Tuchscherer, R. G. (2014). Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99. In Structures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress (pp. 824-834). American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413357.073

Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99. / Tuchscherer, Robin G.

Structures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014. p. 824-834.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Tuchscherer, RG 2014, Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99. in Structures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), pp. 824-834, Structures Congress 2014, Boston, United States, 4/3/14. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413357.073
Tuchscherer RG. Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99. In Structures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2014. p. 824-834 https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413357.073
Tuchscherer, Robin G. / Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99. Structures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2014. pp. 824-834
@inproceedings{0e0e77edf7014e65bf761b7e891aa632,
title = "Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99",
abstract = "The purpose of the study presented in this paper is to compare the current ACI 318-11 strut-and-tie modeling procedure to the previous ACI 318-99 sectional approach for the design of deep beams. To accomplish this goal, the author compiled a database of 905 deep beam tests from the literature. Of these tests, 438 specimens were isolated based on available specimen details, configuration of the test, or both. The shear capacity of these specimens was calculated according to the ACI 318-99 (Section 11.8) and ACI 318-11 (Appendix A) provisions, and compared with their experimentally measured capacity. Based on this analysis, it was observed that capacities calculated with both provisions are statistically similar for the experimental data available; however, the average of the capacities calculated per the ACI 318-99 procedure is increasingly unconservative as the specimen's cross-sectional area increases. The implication of this finding is that use of the ACI 318-99 provisions to design a conventionally sized transfer girder may potentially result in an unsafe situation. The strut and tie modeling procedure did not exhibit this downward trend because the method is founded in first principles. Thus, structural engineers can be assured that their transfer girders will be conservatively designed when using the strut and tie modeling procedure.",
author = "Tuchscherer, {Robin G}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1061/9780784413357.073",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780784413357",
pages = "824--834",
booktitle = "Structures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Why change the code? Comparing the strut-and-tie procedure to ACI 318-99

AU - Tuchscherer, Robin G

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The purpose of the study presented in this paper is to compare the current ACI 318-11 strut-and-tie modeling procedure to the previous ACI 318-99 sectional approach for the design of deep beams. To accomplish this goal, the author compiled a database of 905 deep beam tests from the literature. Of these tests, 438 specimens were isolated based on available specimen details, configuration of the test, or both. The shear capacity of these specimens was calculated according to the ACI 318-99 (Section 11.8) and ACI 318-11 (Appendix A) provisions, and compared with their experimentally measured capacity. Based on this analysis, it was observed that capacities calculated with both provisions are statistically similar for the experimental data available; however, the average of the capacities calculated per the ACI 318-99 procedure is increasingly unconservative as the specimen's cross-sectional area increases. The implication of this finding is that use of the ACI 318-99 provisions to design a conventionally sized transfer girder may potentially result in an unsafe situation. The strut and tie modeling procedure did not exhibit this downward trend because the method is founded in first principles. Thus, structural engineers can be assured that their transfer girders will be conservatively designed when using the strut and tie modeling procedure.

AB - The purpose of the study presented in this paper is to compare the current ACI 318-11 strut-and-tie modeling procedure to the previous ACI 318-99 sectional approach for the design of deep beams. To accomplish this goal, the author compiled a database of 905 deep beam tests from the literature. Of these tests, 438 specimens were isolated based on available specimen details, configuration of the test, or both. The shear capacity of these specimens was calculated according to the ACI 318-99 (Section 11.8) and ACI 318-11 (Appendix A) provisions, and compared with their experimentally measured capacity. Based on this analysis, it was observed that capacities calculated with both provisions are statistically similar for the experimental data available; however, the average of the capacities calculated per the ACI 318-99 procedure is increasingly unconservative as the specimen's cross-sectional area increases. The implication of this finding is that use of the ACI 318-99 provisions to design a conventionally sized transfer girder may potentially result in an unsafe situation. The strut and tie modeling procedure did not exhibit this downward trend because the method is founded in first principles. Thus, structural engineers can be assured that their transfer girders will be conservatively designed when using the strut and tie modeling procedure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84934324004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84934324004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/9780784413357.073

DO - 10.1061/9780784413357.073

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 9780784413357

SP - 824

EP - 834

BT - Structures Congress 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Structures Congress

PB - American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

ER -